Do you hold some numbers more than others for fun?

[babybubba]

Yes inside straight sorry.

What I mean is would I come out better (not ahead) throwing all 5 every time or going for inside straight?

 
You'll come out better.

[macaroo]

 To get this thread back on track, and to answer the original question ( not exactlly). Yes, I do have favorite numbers. 
  Let me explain; I play at the local Racino, yes I know it is a rigged game, shame on me.  But it is the only game in town and I have adapted to it's variiations and quirks.  I like the play dollar and 25 cent DDB.  Early on I noticed that a PAIR of 5s or 10s rarely triple up or never produce a quad if held.  I will hold a single face card and will throw away the pair and be right 98% of the time.  The only time I will hold a 5 or 10 is the rare occassion a triple is dealt.  Then and only then a quad is possible.
  Call it a programming oddity or flow diagram fault.  I don't know what it is.
  BTW, I have mentioned this several times to other players and a lot of them  have confirmed my observation.
 I like 3,4,7s...............2,6,8,9 are O.K. too. Face cards are always Golden.

[Eduardo]

You'll come out better. So you are saying that the math is flat out wrong on this one then. How do you explain that?

[babybubba]

[QUOTE=babybubba]
You'll come out better.
So you are saying that the math is flat out wrong on this one then. How do you explain that?
[/QUOTE]
 
I did not say the math is flat out wrong. I said not holding an inside straight will allow you to come out better. I don't know how long you play, but you're only gonna see an inside str. hit once every 12 opportunities. Take your chances with 12 sweeps. There is no long-term math involved when you're playing a short session. It's all luck and if you want to win then you have to treat it that way. Granted most people are chicken to go against the optimal play because they've been brainwashed into thinking if they use it then they should be winning. Next time you're in LV stand at the corner of Tropicana & LVB and take a good look around at all the beautiful big hotels and resorts. Throughout the years people who created a mathematical edge for themselves are the ones who've made that spectacular sight possible.

[Eduardo]

You said "you'll come out better" not "will allow you to come out better."  Big difference because the math says that even though not holding for inside straight will allow you to make a big hit maybe, it will happen so rarely that on average a person will come out worse than holding for inside straight, even with inside straight not paying much.So which is it? Are the odds i see wrong or not?Math says that even on a short trip you are likely to lose more throwing all away than holding for straight. Maybe not one person but if enough people did this most of them would lose more and very few would get lucky. You could play to get lucky like that but people should know that odds are actually much worse of hitting anything than playing the math play.I understand what you mean about going big on a short session but you make it sound like people will win more trying that.  They give a chance but odds are much much smaller than you make it sound. I think most people will lose doing what you say here on this hand. Please explain how this is wrong.

[babybubba]

You said "you'll come out better" not "will allow you to come out better."  Big difference because the math says that even though not holding for inside straight will allow you to make a big hit maybe, it will happen so rarely that on average a person will come out worse than holding for inside straight, even with inside straight not paying much.

So which is it? Are the odds i see wrong or not?

Math says that even on a short trip you are likely to lose more throwing all away than holding for straight. Maybe not one person but if enough people did this most of them would lose more and very few would get lucky. You could play to get lucky like that but people should know that odds are actually much worse of hitting anything than playing the math play.

I understand what you mean about going big on a short session but you make it sound like people will win more trying that.  They give a chance but odds are much much smaller than you make it sound. I think most people will lose doing what you say here on this hand. Please explain how this is wrong.


Again, the odds are not wrong but the math you're referring to does not say that by sweeping you are likely to lose more. Rather, it says you are giving yourself an opportunity that did not exist by going for the inside straight. In any given single session (and why you're worrying about all the other players is beyond me) you have no idea if you'll fare better by making either play. And if you're happy with a 1-in-12 chance for 20 credits then that's the way you should play it. It also may be one of the reasons why you don't use much of a bankroll.

[Eduardo]

Math says I am giving myself an opportunity that did not exist but odds of hitting that opportunity are very very very low in a short session. Better to try and get a small win that gives me another deal with much better odds and unlimited possibilities I think.I care about other players because i am an other player. If one thousand people try it more than 900 of them will come out worse. To say lots of players do not matter is wrong because lots of people are playing. If 1,000 of them try to give themself a chance of a big hit on that play most of them will not win even if they play many sessions. They are better trying to win a little and get a new hand to try and win big instead of going big on that one I think.If I am wrong show me a calculation that says so like I asked earlier. Odds of hitting big throwing all five compared to odds of hitting inside straight and then hitting big on the fresh deal that I earned. Is that not what we are talking about here?

[oej719]

I go for it sometimes if there is 1 or 2 high cards unsuited involved and no pairs. Not that hard of a choice usually.

[MikeA]

To think on this correctly Eduardo, you must thing of YOU playing that hand 1000 times, not you and 999 other people playing it once.  That's splitting hares (bloody mess!) but you have to think of it in terms of whether YOU will come out better playing that hand as an inside straight or whether you will come out better playing it as a "sweep" hand."
 
I would have to read back in the discussion to be sure, but I think the scenario was that you were holding a low inside straight possibility with no high cards in the original hand (ie 4,5,7,8,9).  Throw it all away or hold for the inside straight?
 
Mathematically, you are slightly better off in going for the 20 credit win. Understand that the possibilities of winning anything at all by holding for the inside straight is ONLY to hit it.  No card but a 6 will help you and there are 4 6's in the unused cards giving you a 4 in 47 chance of hitting it.  That comes out to 1 in 11.75 attempts that you are likely to hit.  The rest of the time, you get nothing.
 
By throwing everything away, you have the possibility of drawing 5 fresh cards that could produce anything from "nothing" to a Royal Flush. 
 
However, hitting that 1 in 11.75 times with the gut-draw straight will mathematically give you more in credits won (over time) than if you "swept" the hand every time.  But, you will win SOMETHING more often (break even pair or two pair usually) by sweeping the hand.
 
The actual calculated figures for winning SOMETHING or Breaking even, are 1 in every 4.31 attempts.  WAY over half of those will be break-even.
 
It comes out mathematically, that you would be losing .488 coins each time you throw away the entire hand instead of going for the gut-draw straight. 
 
Of course, you might get lucky and hit a royal on a swept hand!  Like Clint Eastwood said in Dirty Harry with his 44mag pointed between the bad-guy's eyes "How bout it punk, you feeling lucky today?" 
 
 

[shadowman]

Again, the odds are not wrong but the math you're referring to does not say that by sweeping you are likely to lose more. Rather, it says you are giving yourself an opportunity that did not exist by going for the inside straight. In any given single session (and why you're worrying about all the other players is beyond me) you have no idea if you'll fare better by making either play. And if you're happy with a 1-in-12 chance for 20 credits then that's the way you should play it. It also may be one of the reasons why you don't use much of a bankroll.
 
I think this response by bubba is very informative. The answer to Eduardo's question is clear. On average you will do better going for the inside straight. That has been proven mathematically. Naturally, Rob could never ADMIT that one of his special plays is WRONG so he cranks up the rhetoric in response to pure facts. He also throws in an insult at the end because that is the type of person he is.
 
Let's look at some of Rob's statements more closely.
 
1) "it says you are giving yourself an opportunity that did not exist by going for the inside straight."
 
Humerous. An absolutely content free sentence. You'd give yourself a chance for a RF by tossing dealt quad deuces too. Wait ... maybe that is another one of Rob's special plays.
 
2) "you have no idea if you'll fare better by making either play"
 
This is an example of Rob trying to avoid the FACT that you WILL do better on average by going for the inside straight. His words are chosen carefully to limit the situation to one hand. However, we will all run into this situation many, many times. If we want to succeed then what IS important is how well we do on the sum total of all the tries. For this the math is CLEAR (and Rob knows it). Go for the inside straight.
 
3) "the odds are not wrong but the math you're referring to does not say that by sweeping you are likely to lose more"
 
This is an outright lie. That is why I saved it for the last. The MATH says you will "lose more" over time. Any responible VP player that calls himself a professional (because no one else will) would never make such a grossly inaccurate statement unless they had ulterior motives.